It’s weird that they need a trigger. They’ve got a shed load of troops on the border and their intention is to attack yet they still need an incident to instigate the actual attack. I’m sure a psychologist would have a field day with this behaviour.
Current Affairs Ukraine
- Thread starter Mutzo Nutzo
- Start date
- Status
Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £80m
Is it their intention to attack. My thesis is Russia seeks to bugger up their opposition by any underhand tactic they can get away with long before they actually get involved with conflict.
They were caught with their pants down in Ukraine hence the rapid strike at Crimea and drawn out fighting in the east- I don't think they want to get back into that. They are probably quite happy to be sucking up the west's attention and resources Sun Tzu style by making them commit.
Time will tell.
I take the view that the original plan was actually a massive bluff.
Russia was and is concerned with NATO’s expansion eastward so set out to end it. So they mass a load of troops and equipment on the border with Ukraine, make a lot of threats and request a meeting with NATO with conditions that NATO do not admit Ukraine, Finland or Sweden ever.
NATO for once seem to have called their bluff and now Putin is left with a stark choice.
1. Pull back his troops and accept NATO’s expansion. This will be a massive loss of face for Putin and make Russia appear weak.
2. Invade eastern Ukraine and create a land corridor to Crimea. Risky as this would incur massive sanctions, effectively isolate Russia from the world and risk all out war with NATO.
Tricky one
Certainly looks like Russia are getting ready to move in. They would have known the demands they made could never be granted.
They can’t afford to wait for Ukraine to join Nato because then an attack is off the table. The confirmation Ukraine will receive no direct military assistance is basically a green light for them to mobilise.
Good points there.
Whatever their initial intentions, it’s clear now that Putin has boxed himself in and I can only see them attacking Ukraine. I cannot see him withdrawing without having their demands met. Nor can he continue to have 100K troops sitting around doing nothing.
Scary times
Think it’s safe to say they will mount an offensive of some sort. Question is how far until they stop? A large part of eastern Ukraine is occupied by people who speak Russian as a first language and might be sympathetic to Russian occupation. The rest are mostly Ukrainian speakers and far more pro western.
I can see them going as far as the Dnipro river then halting. A good natural barrier and connects them to Crimea.
Ego-mad,little penised oiks like Putin need taking out. Put a load of women in charge, women don’t start wars in general .
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
When you're the weak power in the situation, your opinion doesn't count for much, even if it's your dirt that's the topic of discussion. It's like two much older siblings ignoring what the five-year-old kid brother has to say, because it doesn't matter to the terms of the meaningful conflict.
The broader problem here is that we've reached a point where neither side's commitments are worth the paper they're written on. Russia abrogates treaties at Putin's whim (recall that Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the treaty that got Ukraine on board with Nunn-Lugar), and I wouldn't trust the word of the United States government past the next presidential election right now. That makes cooperation real hard...including within NATO, and Putin knows that.
The thing that might come back to bite Putin is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine's decision to sell the fissile material back to Russia looks like a bad deal cut by a cash-starved fledgling state in hindsight. Look at North Korea, then look at Ukraine, and tell me whose security situation you'd rather be in as a weak power. If I were running Poland, I would want nukes. If I were Biden, I would be strongly inclined to look the other way, because the risks of adding another nuclear power look a lot smaller than the risk of getting dragged into a war against another nuclear power under Article 5 right now. That may well be a bad long-run judgment (the risks of political instability in Poland are not insignificant), but it looks solid in the short run.
No, this is perfectly normal in international relations, just as it is in other forms of politics. The point of a fig leaf is to give the prospective adversary an excuse to not do anything about the situation, which in turn weakens their resolve.
You're thinking about this problem through the wrong lens. Yes, this behavior is debatably weird when the apparent point of the operation is to convince yourself of something that isn't true. International relations, like most politics, is not a game of individuals. It's a game of individuals who have to navigate the internal politics of their own constituency (so as to retain power) in order to be able to act on the international stage. If you think about it that way, giving the opposition's doves ammunition against their hawks by way of a fig leaf enhances the prospects of being able to get away with utter nonsense.
I wouldnt trust a source like CNN on political matters such as this. Theres so much dirty crap going on by both parties, always has and always will where they try to paint an even worse picture of their opponent than what they are themselves.
Horrible situation but some source criticism should be remembered
Well, I can tell you that many Czechs are still incredibly bitter about Munich, and of course, nothing bad happened from Japan being frozen out of Versailles either. Ukraine is a country of 44 million people. They matter and should have the overriding say in matters that concern them.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
Look, I'm not arguing what's right here. I'm just telling you how it is. Mao was right about one thing: power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Hell, I had someone implicitly threaten me with one this evening while I was picking up a pizza, and not for any cause either of us would call rational. That interaction goes down a lot differently (for a variety of reasons) if that threat isn't present.
There's not a lot of point in taking offense at the more dismal aspects of the reality we're saddled with that we cannot influence. I will (and did) take offense at such an interaction. One could argue that I'm still at the other end of this conversation because I chose not to show it.
Your call on whether or not that was wise. I rendered my judgment. My sick kid needed me, so I walked from a bad scene rather than escalate a confrontation the other side clearly needed, and initiated, to feed a warped ego.
International relations is just that sort of game, played at a higher stakes poker table that affects more lives.
However, I don’t think they can afford the risk of financial implications that would result from an invasion, regardless of their threats to the internet and gas supplies.
I still think this is more likely to die down more than get worse, at least for a while.
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
Very similar to North Korea and it never ending missile testing, be some concession in trade restriction embargo or whatever sanction eased lifted. With Putin Russia will be banking they want to tap into, Threadneedle Street EC2 will happily oblige.
The US state dept issued the communique to the media in an unprecedented move of declassifying and releasing intel.
All the media outlets are running with it. The source is the white house/NSA
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
There is something in bread basket theory "food wars". Both UN and NATO predict fossil fuels will play second fiddle to food. Ukraine was central to feeding the entire Soviet Union, something American food manufacturers are all to aware.
- Status